Question:

Is murali's bowling action fair?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

murali's arm is bent when he relesaes the ball is this fair

 Tags:

   Report

11 ANSWERS


  1. I agree entirley with Bingalee here.

    I myself don't actually no whether his action is legal or not, and to tell you the truth either do you. Your observing his action through the naked eye and ASSUMING that his action is illegal from YOUR observations.

    ICC have cleared him, but if in fact your right and his delivery is illegal what are you planning on doing about it?

    Don't you think murali knows what you think, don't you think the ICC know what you think.

    Why bring up this question, when there's nothing you can do about it, but address your OBSERVATIONS.


  2. If, for argument's sake, Murali had a right arm that was 6 metres long.   Do the ICC, or anybody, have the right to ban him from the game in this instance?

    What if Ponting was 15 metres tall?   Suppose Brett Lee was 25 metres tall?

    I think that my point is simply: 'when a game has an enshrined rule but only highly trained scientists are able to determine whether the rule has been broken, rather than continue arguing the merits of a particular case, should not the rule itself be dropped?'

    "If any bowler is not thinking pure thoughts about the Blessed Virgin when the ball is delivered, this ball shall be declared a no-ball" would be a far easier rule to enforce, surely?

  3. No, of course it is NOT FAIR.

    The extension of his elbow is clearly much greater than any other bowler in cricket, especially spinners. The rule was changed from a 5 degree allowable extension to 15 degrees. According to most ex-players, this is way too lenient. Also, it was found by biomechanists that his arm extends by about 12.5 degrees for a standard off-spinner and almost 14.5 degrees for a "doosra". Firstly, what great difference is there between 14.5 and 15.1 degrees? One is legal, the other not, but won't both give you an equal and unfair advantage?

    Secondly, assuming his action hadn't changed, then for 12 years from 1993 to 2005 his elbow extension was as mentioned above. All along he was violating the rule (then max allowed was 5 degrees) Doesn't this mean that all the wickets he took during this time was obtained illegally? Wasn't he cheating all along?

    Also, why does he longer resort to his "born with a bent arm" excuse; ever since the rule was changed, he has maintained his action has been proven legal, with no reference to his alleged disability. Technically, it is okay to have a bent arm, it is legal as long as the arm does not straighten at the elbow by more than 5/15 degrees. Why would he ever resort to his bent arm excuse if he did not know he was cheating all along? He must have known and tried to defend himself by bringing in his disability issue.

    Lastly, ICC "clearing" his action has been interpreted inaccurately. The ICC has never said that Murali shall never be called for chucking. It has only said that the balls he bowled under examination were within a 15 degree limit and that as long as he doesn't extend it further he is still legal. However, if he does transgress the limit and chucks one with, say, a 20 degree extension in a match, and the umpire detects it, he still has a right to no-ball Murali. Of course, given the scandal this would probably trigger, most umpires would not call him. This shows how illogical ICC's treatment of the issue has been and how Murali continues to get away with what is clearly already an unfair advantage over the others.

  4. I never look at his bowling hand. I always wonder if he is throwing the ball or his eyes at the batsman! He looks very dangerous to me.

  5. How many more times do we need to say this? Murali's action has been tested & found to be legal! All the talk under the sun won't change that. He was given a certain amount of leeway because of a birth defect present in his arm.  

  6. Just remember it is not that the arm is bent during the delivery but the fact that the delivery arm *straightens* during the delivery action.  A bowler could have a 90 degree bend in his/her arm and if they don't straighten the arm during delivery it would be legal.  

    Under the old rules, the amount of straightening allowed was 5 degrees.  That was changed to 15 degrees some years back.  When it was discovered that it was almost impossible for _any_ bowler to bowl in this manner.  This meant that Murali used to have an illegal delivery until they changed the rules.  Now it is legal.  Should be the end of the discussion.

  7. Of course - its in the Laws!

  8. fair enough than Worne & Akthar =drug cheats

  9. It was illegal until the ICC couldn't judge so they changed the rules to suit thus making it legal.

  10. His bowling action is fair, and it is in laws of ICC.

  11. His action is not fair.  Technically and according to law it may be right but ethically it is not fair.

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 11 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.
Unanswered Questions